Design and Performance of Bow Thrusters

John L. Beveridge 1

This paper concerns the hydrodynamic forces and moments produced by a bow thruster. Several
broad problem areas a r e discussed and the extent of present-day knowledge indicated. These include
general duct arrangement, duct shape, and impeller design. A step-by-step design procedure is outlined that permits the selection of a practical bow thruster. This procedure is described for a minimum
number of operational requirements; e.g., single bow thruster, a specified turning rate when the ship
is dead in the water, and a duty cycle that requires thruster operation at ahead speed for control
capability in canals, harbors, and other restricted waterways.

At the present time conventional circular transverse bow

thrusters dominate the field of maneuvering propulsion devices
(MPD) with respect to units installed. The literature on bow
thrusters is replete with experimental and analytical d a t a
concerned with performance information and design criteria.
Since many of these d a t a can be generalized it is believed
timely to review and tie together this information in one paper.
The performance of some bow thrusters probably could have
been improved if certain information and knowledge had been
available during their design. This is especially true with regard to duct size and the importance of the free-stream velocity
in relation to the thruster outflow velocity in determining the
total body force. M a n y types of thrusters have been installed
and proposed for consideration and development. Included are:
single and multiple units installed near the ship's bow a n d / o r
stern, axial-flow propellers (embracing fixed pitch, controllable pitch, contrarotating), cycloida] propellers, and jet configurations such as ejector, ram, etc.
In order to keep the present paper of reasonable length, emphasis is placed on the hydrodynamically applied forces and
moments due to a single bow thruster duct with a single fixedpitch propeller (impeller). The combined action of multiple
thruster units or coupling with rudder action is not considered.
Such factors as wind, water current, ship motions, etc. t h a t
require a knowledge of ship particulars and ship response are
not within the scope of the present paper. However, ship rotation rates t h a t have been used satisfactorily in the past for bow
thruster installations will be introduced. The paper presents
and discusses: performance factors or parameters which describe or aid in the evaluation of thruster performance, the
extent of present knowledge and design criteria as related to
configuration arrangement, duct geometry, propeller design,
added resistance at ahead s~ip speed, and interaction of
thruster jet flow with the mainstream. Particular details encompassed in this paper are recommendations or criteria for
the following design quantities: duct immersion, duct diameter, duct length, duct lip radius or shape, propeller hub-pod
and fairwater effects, propeller blade shape, and propeller
pitch-diameter ratio.
A step-by-step design procedure which permits the selection
of a practical bow thruster is outlined. This procedure is described for a m i n i m u m number of operational requirements;
e.g., single bow thruster, a specified turning rate when the ship
is dead in the water, and a duty cycle t h a t requires thruster
operation at ahead speed for control capability in canals, harbors, and other restricted waterways.
1 Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Washington, D. C.
Presented at the January 13, 1972 meeting of the Chesapeake Section of The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
OCTOBER 1972

Background
To assist in directing the designer to the more extensive
areas of thruster work t h a t have been published, the following
background comments are made. It is suggested that the references cited be consulted for additional detail.
The work of Taniguchi [1]2 is very comprehensive and systematic. He conducted captive model tests as well as freerunning model maneuvering tests. For static tests a standard
test block which p e r m i t t e d variations in geometry of the duct
configuration was utilized. Among the quantities investigated
by systematic series tests were: for the propeller--blade outline, blade section, blade numbers, expanded area ratio, hub
ratio, and pitch-diameter ratio; for the duct--duct wall inclination, grids, guide vanes, duct inner-wall shape, duct
length, bottom immersion, duct opening lip radius, and
duct opening fairing for three ship types (investigation of
added resistance).
Chislett [2] has made measurements of body force and body
turning moment on a captive tanker model. Special attention
was given to explaining the effect of the ratio of model speed
to thruster jet velocity. Implications to design and operation
are rationalized based on the experimental results obtained at
the ahead-speed condition.
Taylor [3] has examined the effects of shroud (duct) lip
radius, duct length, and duct diffusion on the performance of
an airscrew at the static condition.
Ridley [4] has presented some full-scale bow thruster d a t a
and the results of some American Shipbuilding Company
series work with thruster entrance configuration. The possible
beneficial effect of a truncated conic fairing with regard to
a d d e d resistance was discussed.
Stuntz [5] has studied added resistance for several alternate
fairings for tunnel openings and indicated how the flow patterns may be critically affected by the fairing detail. T h a t combined fences and bars placed across the tunnel entrance (in
the flow line) can effectively reduce resistance augmentation
in some cases was demonstrated.
Hawkins [6] has made an extensive study of several types of
MPD for the U. S. Maritime Administration. His work encompasses a spectrum of problems involved in the choice of an
MPD and its design and performance. Maneuvering requirements, external forces, applied forces, and econofnic considerations are all discussed.
English [7] has shown that the ideal static merit coefficient
is increased by the use of some jet diffusion. However, he points
out t h a t in practice the diffusion process is inefficient in a
2 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
439

viscous flow for the typical short, wide-angled diffuser, and

consequently, little improvement in performance could be expected. An analytical study of duct inlet shape (constant
velocity, elliptical, separation) was made. Practical considerations indicate t h a t the d u c t - h u l l roundings required for good
efficiency are not usually compatible with low added resistance.
Van Manen [8] has reported the results of comparative
maneuvering tests for two tanker models: one model with a
conventional propeller and rudder arrangement and one model
with a Hogner afterbody, accelerating ducted propeller, and
bow and stern thrusters (no rudder).
Pehrsson [9] has reported the results of a systematic series
of tests in a water tunnel with a controllable-pitch propeller.
Bow thruster performance was related to the cavitation index
a'.
The Naval Ship Research and Development Center
(NSRDC) has investigated by means of systematic experiments the effects of duct lip radius (at static and ahead operation) and propeller pitch ratio on bow thruster efficiency. A
theoretical and experimental study of the interaction between
an ambient flow and thruster inflow and outflow has also been
made [10].
Schwanecke [11] has reported a short chronology and summary of work on lateral thrusters.

Most widely used are the static-merit coefficient

0.00182 T ~/~ _ K r a/2
shp f p ~92
7ra/'2KQ

C _

and the Bendemann static thrust factor

T
p . 2/aD~/a(prr/2)~/a

Kr
1
= Kc~2/a 7r(2)1/3

where
T = total lateral thrust taken equal to the body reactive
force
shp = shaft horsepower
Ps = shaft power in consistent units
D = duct diameter
p = mass density
T

K T = p n 2 D 4 = the usual propeller thrust coefficient

KQ - - - the usual propeller torque coefficient

pn2D 5

n = propeller frequency of revolution

Operational duty
Two distinct maneuvering and control capabilities may be
required of a bow thruster. On the one hand the critical maneuvering and control function may be when the ship is dead in
the water or at extremely low headway. This type of duty cycle
is exemplified by a variety of tenders or observation ships that
must maintain station in the presence of wind, current, etc.,
or must execute changes in heading. Vessels which operate
mainly in harbors and with frequent docking and undocking,
such as ferries, also have this type of duty cycle. On the other
hand the critical function for control may be for operation at
a sustained ahead speed for long periods of time in restricted
waterways such as coastal waters, canals and rivers. For this
latter type of duty the design of a bow thruster must consider
the interaction between the mainstream and the thruster jet
flow which can compromise the design and performance of the
bow thruster compared to t h a t for an essentially static condition.
An obvious operational duty is t h a t the thruster produce a
body force and body moment to turn the ship to starboard or
port. This duty cycle leads to a thruster design which incorporates symmetrical blade sections fbr the propeller and
identically shaped duct entrance and exit openings. How this
affects the thruster design will be discussed later.
Needless to say there are other operational duties and requirements (particularly %r very specialized vessels including
submersibles) that call for the use of multiple ducted thrusters
or some other type of MPD. However, as stated previously
these are not within the scope of this paper.

These expressions are derived from momentum theory and can

be shown to attain ideal (nonviscous) m a x i m u m values of
Cmax = v~2 and ~max = 1.0 for unshrouded propellers. For
ducted propellers and with no duct diffusion, Cma~ = 2 and
~'max = 3/r~. The following relation 3 exists between C and ~':
___32
or

C = f~/~l/2
It is noted t h a t with comparisons involving either C or ~ the
higher the coefficient the more effective is the bow thruster;
t h a t is, more thrust per horsepower is developed. For equal
total thrust comparisons
T 1 = T 2 = p D 1 4 K T l n l 2 = D D 2 4 K T n2 2
2

and for equal power comparisons

Ps

Ps

= PD15KQ~nI 3 = pD25KQ
2

n2 3
2

which leads to

P~

D,~ K<(Kr.,~ ~/~

for equal ibrce, and

Performance factors
Static m e r i t coefficient. The useful work output given by
the usual definition of propeller efficiency becomes zero at zero
propeller advance. Since thrust is still produced, a measure of
static (at rest) efficiency is needed to evaluate or compare
thruster performance for this condition. Several forms of the
so-called merit coefficient, figure of merit, static thrust efficiency, etc. have been used widely in both marine and aero,nautical applications. In the latter case they have been used to
characterize the performance of helicopter rotors and VTOL
aircraft.
440

rl _ (D1V >I(KQ2 F
for equal power.
For the static case, Platt [12] has shown a relation between
the thrust of a ducted and an unducted propeller at equal powa In the discussion (p. 370) accompanying Reference [5], an error of
x/2 appears in the maximum possible values given for C and its relation to ~-.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY

PO
IL

PO
PO
U =0

PO

Ui - - ~

ACTUATORAj

Uj
.--------=--

Aj

~,._~Uj

CONSTANTAREA
DIFFUSION

DUCTED

AC,UATOR

OPEN (UNDUCTED)
Fig. 1

Idealized flow for ducted and open-type thrusters

er b y t h e u s e o f a s i m p l e , n o n v i s c o u s m o m e n t u m t h e o r y . T h e
s a m e r e l a t i o n is d e r i v e d h e r e i n a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t m a n n e r .
T h e f l o w c o n d i t i o n s a r e d e p i c t e d s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n Fig. 1 w h e r e
it is n o t e d t h a t a m b i e n t s t a t i c p r e s s u r e is a s s u m e d a t t h e d u c t
exit. The assumption seems reasonable from the standpoint
t h a t , in a r e a l flow w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e d u c t d i f f u s i o n , t h e f l o w
will s e p a r a t e b e f o r e t h e e x i t a n d w i t h l i t t l e or n o d i f f u s i o n t h e
approaching streamlines are essentially parallel, resulting in a
j e t - c o n t r a c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of u n i t y . S i n c e t h e s y s t e m is a s s u m e d t o b e c o n s e r v a t i v e ( n o f r i c t i o n ) , all t h e p o w e r a b s o r b e d
b y t h e i m p e l l e r is c o n v e r t e d i n t o k i n e t i c e n e r g y in t h e f i n a l j e t .
T h e r e f o r e , for t h e u n d u c t e d c a s e :

1
1 pAIU,..(Uj~)2~
Punduc~ea = ~ m U j ~ 2 =

= ~1p A I U j ~ 3

a n d for t h e d u c t e d c a s e
Pducted

= -21 m U 9 = I p A j U j ( U j ) 2

where
P
m
p
U2~

=
=
=
=

fluid power
m a s s flow p e r s e c o n d
mass density
f i n a l s l i p s t r e a m v e l o c i t y of t h e u n d u c t e d p r o p e l l e r
Uj = j e t v e l o c i t y o f o u t f l o w f r o m d u c t
A1 = i m p e l l e r d i s k a r e a
A j = a r e a of d u c t o u t f l o w

At the same power

P unduc~ed = Pducted =

~ pAzUj a = -~ p A j U j

(1)

From the change in momentum, T = pAjUj 2 total thrust of

d u c t e d p r o p e l l e r , a n d T , = 1/2pAIUi~ u n d u c t e d p r o p e l l e r
thrust with the ratio

= ~1 p A j U j

2Aj /' U~ y

T,

At

(2)

\ Uj~]

Nomenclature.
A = cross-sectional area of d u c t (nondiffusing)
AI = swept area of impeller
Aj = cross-sectional area of t h r u s t e r outflow
B = maximum beam
C = static m e r i t coefficient
D = duct diameter
g = acceleration due to gravity
H = ship draft or a n e t head, feet of
water
K~- = total side-force coefficient T/pA Uj 2
K 0 = impeller torque coefficient Q/pn2D 5
KT = total side-force coefficient T/pn2D 4
L = ship length or a
length in general

characteristic

l = d u c t length

Mo = rotation rate constant, Fig. 4

OCTOBER 1972

m = fraction of length of t h r u s t e r d u c t
from bow, Fig. 4
n = impeller frequency of revolution,
rps
P = impeller p i t c h or a n e t pressure,

Po Pv
Po = hydrostatic pressure ( a t m o s p h e r i c
-

+ s u b m . to axis)
power in consistent u n i t s
vapor pressure of water
impeller torque
jet d y n a m i c pressure, p/2 Uj 2
drag a d d e d by d u c t
impeller s h a f t horsepower
total t h r u s t (side force) of impeller
and surface forces
To = d u c t surface force (thrust)
Tp = impeller rotor t h r u s t

Ps
Pv
Q
qj
R
shp
T

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Uj = t h r u s t m o m e n t u m raean outflow
velocity
U~, V = u n d i s t u r b e d fluid velocity or ship
speed
= d u c t v o l u m e flow rate
XT = characteristic d i s t a n c e from d u c t
axis to m i d s h i p s or cg
xt, = impeller h u b d i a m e t e r as fraction
of D
zx = d i s p l a c e m e n t , tons
A Cp' = pressure coefficient A P / q j
A P = difference between t h e pressure on
t h e hull with t h r u s t e r outflow a n d
no outflow
~"= B e n d e m a n n static t h r u s t e r factor
p = m a s s d e n s i t y of water
a' = cavitation index (Po - PL,)/1/2 p D2n 2
= flow coefficient -V-/B2U~
COo= t u r n i n g rate, deg per see

441

Table 1

Bow Thruster
Installation

Static merit coefficients for,circular-ducted thrusters

(no diffusion, model data)

Reference

Merit
Coefficient C
1.50

Best c o n f i g u r a t i o n ,
x h = 0.24

DSRV

0.87

Stock design

DSRV

1.46

Shrouded a i r s c r e w
in a plane wall

Comment*

Final design, x h = 0.27;

Optimum P/D f o r given D

Markham

0.63

4 x 103 Ib side f o r c e

Series

1.15

Ae/A o = 0 . 3 ; x h = 0 . 4 ;
Highest m e r i t c o e f f i c i e n t
among a l l v a r i a t i o n s

Series

1.18

Ae/A = 0.52; x h = 0 . 3 ;
Highest m e r i t c o e f f i c i e n t
among a l l v a r i a t i o n s

0.55 to 0.78

Seri es

P r o p e l l e r 317-B f o r
~' = 3.0 and P/D = 0.4
to 0.9

LST

0.82

800-hp u n i t ; Blunt-ended
hub-pod assembly (no
f a i r water)

LST

0.65

500-hp u n i t ; Blunt-ended
hub-pod assembly (no
fairwater)

*Cmax = 2.0 f o r a n o n d i f f u s i n g i d e a l i z e d t h r u s t e r .

Equations (2b) and (2c) are important and useful relations.

For example, they indicate limiting ideal values 4 for ~ or C and
show that for higher static thrust efficiency some duct diffusion
is required. More will be said about this later.
Another important ducted-propeller parameter is the ratio
of impeller thrust to the total thrust T p / T as a function of exit
area ratio. The impeller thrust is determined by the pressure
j u m p (P2 - P1) which occurs across the disk area A l; i.e.,

From equation (1)

U j ) ~ _ Ar

or

Uj~)

K2A~.]

T# = ( P 2 -

which when substituted in equation (2) gives

(A,

(2AA 3

P1)A,I

Writing the Bernoulli equation just behind and ahead of the

impeller (Fig. 1), we obtain
(2a)
1 2
P2 = Po + ~PU 12 --~P~I

for equal power.

English has shown (equation 6 of Reference [7]) that, ideally, the B e n d e m a n n static thrust factor ~ is numerically equal
to

P, = P o - ~1p U ~ 2
or

2Aj~ 1/3

P2-P1

= ~PUy

whereupon
Thus from (2a)
T

(2b)

It follows from a previous definition that

C = 2]/-AJA,
442

(2c)

Tp

~pUj A I

4 For a finite-bladed propeller the ratio of ducted propeller thrust to

unducted propeller thrust at equal power has been found to be greater
experimentally than is given by simple momentum theory [3]. This
is probably because the bound circulation F goes to zero at the blade
tip for the unducted propeller, whereas the load is constant across the
disk for the momentum model used.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY

1.2

and

Tp
T

1/2pUgAr
pAjUy 2

A1
2Aj

1.0

(3)

0.8

Thus, for a straight-through circular duct (no diffusion), the

total thrust is equally divided between the rotor and the duct.
Further, it can be shown for this case that the duct surface
force arises at the duct inlet and bears a resemblance to the
suction force at the leading edge from thin-airfoil theory.
Idealized curves of ~', C, and T p / T as a function of A j / A i a r e
given in Fig. 6. Because of its widespread use in this country
and the usual problem of designing for a prescribed lateral
force with m i n i m u m absorbed power, C will be used for performance evaluation in this report. Table 1 presents the static
merit coefficient C for several bow thruster installations (no
diffusion) reported in the literature.
Force, m o m e n t , a n d velocity. In general, body total force
and moment have been nondimensionalized in terms of impeller frequency of rotation or an average jet velocity Uj. The
KT and KQ coefficients just defined in connection with the
static merit coefficient are an example of the former case. It is
also appropriate to use a nondimensional form of body coefficient which is independent of impeller characteristics. The jet
velocity is convenient for this purpose as follows:
Body force coefficient
Body m o m e n t coefficient

KF -

T
pAU~ 2

N'

N
pA U j2XT

~ 0.6
0,4

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

U=

uj
(a) Submersible

1.2

1.0 ~

0.8
Z
~

0.6

F0RCE,,,,
d'

0.4

where
N = body turning moment
XT a characteristic lever arm (usually distance from duct
axis to midships or cg)
A = duct cross-sectional area
Uj =(T/pA) 1/2 = m o m e n t u m mean jet velocity based on
static thrust

Velocity Uj can also be calculated from a pitot survey made

radially across the duct. A value near unity is obtained for KF
and N ' at zero ahead speed, thus providing a fractional (percent) scale for the influence of ahead speed. A commonly used
velocity ratio is U~o/Uj. This form of the parameter is preferred
to the inverse ratio which becomes infinite at zero ship speed.
Fig. 2 is a typical plot of these coefficients.
T u r n i n g rate. A design thrust for a bow thruster can be obtained if the ship response to the side force is specified. The
turning rate Wo (deg/sec) when the ship is dead in the water is
one performance criterion. The steady rotation of a ship not
underway is basically a drag problem. By representing the ship
as a flat plate with underwater dimensions of L and H, Hawkins [6] calculated wo for comparison with observed (measured)
values of O~o for a n u m b e r of ships. The agreement in results
was very close in most cases. Figure 3 presents Hawkins curves
of measured turning rates as a function of displacement. The
band given by these curves represents turning rates which have
been considered satisfactory in past bow thruster installations.
Figure 4 is a graph of the rotation rate constant Mo and nondimensional pivot point p as a function of nondimensional side
force location. These are the Hawkins curves calculated for a
single thruster acting on a flat plate.
Present knowledge and design criteria
Because of the complexity of the design problem of a bow
thruster (which can exhibit strong interactions with the hull),
some developmental experimentation may be necessary to approach or obtain an optimum configuration for a specific hull.
OCTOBER

1972

0.2

0.4

0.8

L2

1.6

U
Uj

(b) Surface ship

(according to Reference [2])
Fig.

Typical body force and body moment coefficient versus

Uoo/Uj for a bow thruster

However, certain basic flow phenomena, relationships, and

performance characteristics are common to most bow thrusters, and, therefore, can be used in the design process to describe or determine their behavior. Thus, a great deal of the
available experimental data can be exploited in a general manner as a guide in the design of bow thrusters. To this end such
pertinent data and information are recounted.
G e n e r a l a r r a n g e m e n t . Location of the duct tunnel is hydrodynamically important but limited by practical considerations. Safety requirements dictate that it must be located behind the collision bulkhead. Space and other structural requirements must be satisfied. Strictly for the purpose of applying the thruster lateral force to obtain m a x i m u m body-turning
moment, the duct should be located fairly far forward (probably not forward of station 0.10L). Hull curvature in the vicinity of the tunnel opening can significantly affect performance,
particularly as related to added resistance (discussed later) at
ahead ship speed and the fairing shape for the openings.
The need for an adequate duct length relative to the duct
diameter further restricts the choice for duct location. Experi443

1.0

o.8
o.6
w
1:3

0.4

2
0.2

12

16

20

24

DISPLACEMENT- TONSx 10-3

Fig. 3

140

Band of rotation rates versus displacement with MPD at zero ship speed
(according to Reference [6])

~.~

2.0
1.9

1.7
1.6

loo
u

1.5

1,4
1.3

80

iJ
~z
q,
w

o
=
c~
1.2
1.1

1,0
4O

>
m

0.9

o.,

0.7
0.6

-0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

\o.,
0,5

CENTEROF TRANSVERSEFORCEFROMEND + LENGTH= m

Fig. 4

Pivot point and rotation rate constant for a single side force
acting on a ship (according to Reference [6])

ments by Taniguchi [1] show a rather broad flat optimum

based on C between a length equal to 1D and 2D. A length
equal to at least 2D is probably better because of the more
rapid decrease in C that would be expected for very short
ducts (i. e. l < D). Inasmuch as the duct diameter usually
must be selected as a compromise, only a tentative (initial)
444

choice can be made. According to Taniguchi, bottom immersion should not be less than one duct diameter measured from
duct axis to keel. Similarly, it seems reasonable that a minim u m submergence of one diameter from the load waterline to
the duct axis should be maintained since wave action and ship
motions would adversely affect bow thruster performance or
added resistance. This might be a critical problem when the
ship is running in ballast condition. In this regard, a possible
problem for consideration is air drawing from the free surface
by the ducted thruster unit. To the author's knowledge no detailed study of this problem leading to design criteria for propellers in relatively long tunnels at zero advance has been
made. However, some bow thruster experiments for a LST at
various drafts have been conducted at NSRDC. The results
showed that with tunnel submergence (measured to axis) as
small as 0.71D, no free-surface effect on side force or power
was observed.
Shiba [13] has presented the results of an extensive study of
air drawing of conventional unducted marine propellers. Of
academic interest is the necessary condition postulated by
Shiba as follows:

- P ' ) b > 2s
where
Pa = atmospheric pressure
P' = absolute pressure (including Pa) at a point on the body
surface
b = width of dead-water region
S = surface tension between water and air
It is perceived that the extent of the dead-water region due to
laminar separation near the leading edge and the pressure
decrement in that region are involved in the occurrence of air
drawing. In the inequality, it is obvious that the atmospheric
pressure drops out and that P ' depends only on depth of submergence and a pressure coefficient of the body. Considering
only the duct (but with impeller operating), a well-rounded
duct inlet would not be likely to have a high suction peak or an
extensive dead-water region. The experimental results presented by Shiba are for propellers at submergences <0.61D.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY

SECTIONA-A

Fig. 5

Model bow thruster installation

An extrapolation of the Shiba data (for P / D = 1.0) 5 to zero

J indicated that a submergence of at least ~0.76D would be
needed to avoid air sucking sufficient to affect propeller performance. Since the duct carries a substantial part of the total
load of a bow thruster, it might be expected that less submergence is required to avoid detrimental air sucking in that
case. T h a t this is a reasonable assumption is substantiated
by the previously mentioned LST tests.
Duct diameter is obviously a major factor in the installation
cost and operating efficiency of a bow thruster. Large diameters may be more economical in horsepower but represent a
heavier unit and a greater capital investment. For surface-ship
installations where cavitation might be a problem, it has been
found that a ~' < 3.5 should not be used. This fact must be
kept in mind for the final choice of diameter. Although no precise recommendation can be made here, a smaller diameter
(higher rpm) thruster propeller may result in a less costly and
more efficient prime mover.
To be discussed later is the problem of choosing a bow
thruster diameter with regard to development of hull surface
interaction forces when the ship duty cycle prescribes operation of the thruster with the ship underway.
Another option which properly belongs in the realm of general arrangement is the choice of a fixed-pitch or controllablepitch propeller. Extensive information and data are not available to permit a judicious evaluation of the relative merits of
controllable- versus fixed-pitch propellers. Controllable-pitch
propellers permit thrust reversal where machinery rotation
cannot be reversed. These propellers could lead to rather large
hubs which decrease the overall performance (discussed later).
D u c t i n t e r n a l shape. The constant-area (nondiffusing)
circular duct is apparently the favored form of tunnel for bow
thrusters of the axial-flow impeller type. English [7] has con-

cluded that a bow thruster duct without diffusion is the most

5 A near optimum value for ducted thrusters as will be seen later.
OCTOBER 1972

appropriate choice in practice. As shown previously the Bendem a n n factor

KQ'"

A,)

is numerically equal to a function of the ratio of the outflow jet

area A i to the impeller swept area AI. It can be seen from the
foregoing relation that for higher static thrust efficiency some
diffusion is required. However, the typical bow thruster installation would lead to a rather inefficient short wide-angle
diffuser. Additionally, English points out that the larger hull
opening of the diffuser is undesirable from the standpoint of
resistance, and that the relatively larger reduction in pressure
on the suction side of the impeller would increase the danger of
cavitation compared to a constant-area duct.
Duct inner-wall shape was investigated by Taniguchi [1].
He used a series of three shapes that included (1) a standard
parallel wall, (2) a concave wall (contracted entrance) to keep
a constant flow area in the presence of the hub-pod assembly,
and (3) a convex wall (expanded entrance) to evaluate static
pressure recovery in the impeller outflow. Among these variations the standard constant-area duct gave the highest static
merit coefficient.
D u c t openings. Probably the most studied feature of bow
thrusters has been the shaping of the duct openings. It is well
known that for a jet flow the duct inlet should not have a sharp
edge because infinite velocities are obtained in a frictionless
flow and separation occurs at the edge in a viscous flow. A significant part of the total thrust produced by a ducted thruster
is derived from the surface forces generated on the curved inlet
and surrounding hull surface. With these factors in mind, it appears that some type of fairing radius or shape should be used.
In contrast, the duct exit should have a sharp edge to assure
stable outflow separation with m i n i m u m loss. Herein lies the
great compromise because of the thrust (flow) reversal require445

1.4

../.I
,./"

1.2

f
2.8

f
2.4

1.0;
C3
z
<

f
2.0

0.8

I f
0.6

1.6

#,
./

0.4

1.2

0.6

0.4

0.8

1.0

1.2

1,4

1.6

Aj/A!
Fig. 6

I d e a l i z e d v a r i a t i o n o f ~, C, a n d

Tp/Tw i t h

exit area ratio

sobRcE

NSROC
RIGHT HAND*
NSRDC
RIGHT HAND*
REF. 3
LEFT HAND
REF. 1
LEFT HAND
I
I
*NOTE: COEFFICIENT C CANNOT
BE USED FOR COMPARISON INVOLVINGAHEAD

1.6

.s/~AIR
I-

SCREW

1.4

- -

S~ALE

SPEED

1.0

I WITH 10%STEP
I

u.

1,2

l"

1.0

0.9

0.8

WITH 10% STEP

,.J. . . . . . . . . . . . .
V = 2.61 KNOTS
RN = 1.485 X 107

0.8

o.7

ffl~

/
0.6

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

rLIp/D
Fig. 7

446

Criteria for establishing

d u c t lip r a d i u s

MARl

NE TECHNOLOGY

xlo4

m e n t of bow thrusters. A suitable fairing shape somewhere between a nice constant-velocity inlet and a sharp-edge outlet is
desired. An almost uniform experimental result (see Fig. 7) has
b e e n reported for the static mode of operation; for example,
Best r l i p / D
not less than ~ 0.08 . . . .
-~0.10 . . . .
~0.12 . . . .

Reference
[3] (for inlet only)
[1]
*

Tests at ahead speed with variable duct-lip radii conducted at

NSRDC* showed little compromise choice between the best
lip radius for the static and ahead modes of operation based on
thruster performance. Stuntz [5] has recommended that a step
be provided at the junction of the duct wall and the tangency
line of the lip radii. The function of the step is to assure outflow separation with rounded duct openings. Since a step is undesirable on the entrance side there is probably a step size
where the advantage at the outflow prevails over the disadvantage on the inflow. A step equal to 1/10 the m a x i m u m lip
radius has been suggested [5], and experimental results with
this size step showed about a 3-percent increase in thrust producible per unit torque for a range of rpm.
If the duct openings are not fitted with doors, the effect of
the duct openings on added resistance at ahead speed presents
another consideration. Duct diameter and hull-duct opening
fairing for high thruster efficiency are not completely compatible with low resistance. A method which is almost universally
accepted as an effective solution to this extra drag problem is
to form a conic fairing to remove the hard shoulder-like projection of the duct opening at the downstream edge. However,
English [7] considers this procedure rather idealized in the
sense that it is effective only for the case of pure forward motion. English has suggested that vanes placed vertically across
the duct opening could be helpful in destroying the fore-andaft m o m e n t u m of the flow. Taniguchi [1] found a steady decrease in the merit coefficient C for horizontally placed grids
(vanes) with increasing n u m b e r of vanes. From no grids to five
grids showed a 10-point drop in C. In Reference [1] the conclusion was reached that the added drag of duct openings is small
for fine ships and considerable for full ships. Several ship types
were tested (cable layer, liner, and supertanker) with variations in duct location on the hull and fairing shapes (including
conical).
After testing and analyzing the resistance data of several
bow thruster configurations, Stuntz [5] suggested the use in
design of an average drag coefficient Co = Rduct/l~ p A F a =
0.07 for carefully faired duct openings, where p is the mass
density of water, A is the duct cross-sectional area, V is the
ship speed, and R is drag added by the duct. A dimensional relationship is provided in Fig. 8 for convenience in estimating
the resistance of duct openings with Co = 0.07.
I m p e l l e r selection. The importance of a hydrodynamically clean design for the internal arrangement of the supporting
strut or struts and the impeller hub-pod-fairwater configuration cannot be overemphasized. It is desirable to keep the hub
ratio xt~ of the impeller (rotor) as small as possible and the entire configuration well streamlined. The following example
shows what can be accomplished by proper attention to design
detail. Some preliminary static tests were made at NSRDC
with a bow thruster unit which consisted of the lower half of a
commercial outboard motor right-angle drive. A large hub
ratio xh = 0.42 was required with a very b l u n t (fineness ratio
LID ~ 2.0) hub-pod-fairwater configuration. Final static tests
were made with the well-designed right-angle drive shown in
Fig. 5. This arrangement had a modest hub ratio xh = 0.27 and
an overall fineness ratio LID ~ 8. At the same impeller pitch
ratio of 0.8, the static merit coefficient C was increased from
* NSRDC report not in the public domain.
OCTOBER

1972

I
I

//

xlo3

/J
/

2
z

/
/

100

/
/

10
1.0

Fig.

D IN FEET

10

Relationship for estimating the resistance of well-faired

duct openings

an originally measured value of 0.87 to a value of 1.32 with the

final design.
Several types of viscous and nonviscous losses [14] are associated with the blockage of a duct by the insertion of the
necessary impeller driving arrangement. Stream rotation-The impeller torque developed in a frictionless flow leads to an
induced tangential velocity. The average stream rotation
and losses are dependent on the torque distribution and the
hub size. Dif/usion--A pod, impeller hub, and fairwater arrangement of finite length installed in a straight-through duct
can be likened to the effect on efficiency of a typical wall diffusing section. Thus, losses are associated with diffuser efficiency as a function of the theoretical total-head rise in the
rotor. Separation--Any condition, including too b l u n t a pod
assembly, which leads to flow separation, may produce additional large losses.
Like open-water propeller systematic series, more can be
learned concerning ducted propeller (bow thruster) performance by conducting experiments with a model or models,
incorporating systematic variations in certain geometric parameters to determine the hydrodynamic characteristics of
447

1.70

TRAINABLE
KORT NOZZLE
K a 4-70 ( N O Z Z L E 19a)

1.60

1.50

1.40

BOW T H R U S T E R , DSRV - -

1.30
L)

z
u.

1.10 i

8
0~
LU

f
0.90

Xh

= 0.4
i R E F . 1) - -

BOW TH RUSTE R - Ae/A o = 0.45

( K A P L A N TYPE)

/_

TROOSTB455
ooOOOTEO

0.7(3

=.===.= ~ . ~ . , . . J , = .
0.50
0.4

Fig. 9

0.5

0.6

~ t - , , K' J 4 . 5 5 1 N A C I R C U L A R C Y L I N D E R ( R E F . 6

|
]
l
0.7
0.8
0.9
THRUSTER PITCH RATIO (P/D)0. 7

I
1.0

]
1.1

1.2

C o m p a r i s o n of merit coefficient C as a f u n c t i o n of thruster pitch ratio for fixed and

trainable m a n e u v e r i n g propulsion d e v i c e s as d e t e r m i n e d by e x p e r i m e n t

ducted propeller systems. This type of experimentation has

been performed by several investigators [1, 9, 15, 16], and their
test results provide the basis for most of the comments that
follow. First, consider pitch ratio P/D. Experiments on shrouded propellers reported by Taniguchi [1], Van M a n e n [15, 16],
and the author are in substantial agreement and confirm an
optimum P/D near unity based on C for zero advance coefficient (static condition). A significant fact is that the merit
coefficient attains a m a x i m u m value at P/D --~ 1.0 regardless
of the tunnel type. That is to say, in each case the surface
forces are dissimilar, particularly for the Van Manen ducted
propellers in an axial cylinder. The Van M a n e n Ka 4-55 data
have been replotted conveniently for zero propeller advance
coefficient to a base of pitch ratio in Fig. 11-5 of Reference
[6]. Van M a n e n [16] has recommended the use of a constant
face pitch (no radial variation) since his test results showed
no "drawbacks with respect to efficiency and cavitation."
Static efficiencies derived from all the aforementioned tests
are summarized in Fig. 9 together with other MPD types. In
Fig. 9, it is particularly noteworthy to see the penalty tbr operating a nondiffusing ducted thruster at a n o n o p t i m u m pitch
ratio. Figures 10 and 11 show bow thruster coefficients K r
and KQ obtained from experiments with adjustable-pitch
propellers.
Propeller blade outline and blade section shape have been
studied for ducted propellers [1]. The consensus is that a blade
outline with wide tips 6 (Kaplan type) is desirable to better
avoid cavitation [17]. Elliptical or some other symmetricalairfoil blade sections should be used to accommodate thrusting
to port or starboard. With regard to blade number, the limited
data available show an advantage of several points for the
merit coefficient C of four blades over three blades [1].
Pehrsson [9] has provided some cavitation data (see Fig. 12)
6Tip clearance should be as small as practical. Taniguchi [1] reported about a 5-percent reduction in the static merit coefficient when tip
clearance was varied from 0.005 D to 0.05 D.
448

which can be used for guidance in the design of bow thrusters.

His tests were conducted in the Kristinehamn cavitation tunnel. A duct with simulated ship plating was installed in the
cavitation tunnel. A zero advance condition was maintained
by bucking the bow-thruster-induced flow by rotating the cavitation tunnel impeller pump in a reversed thrust direction.
Cavitation observation and thruster force and duct force measurements (with 3-bladed and 4-bladed impellers having Ae/
Ao = 0.43 to 0.50) indicated that the cavitation index

cr' -

P,,-P,
1/2pD~n2

should be >3.5 to avoid cavitation. Where doubt exists as to

whether a "cavitation-free" design has been provided, a lifting-line design calculation should be performed.
For the static condition, the total delivered bow thruster
force T consists of the impeller thrust T , and the surface force
TD on the hull inlet side. Earlier in this report it was shown
that ideally, with no duct diffusion, the total thrust js divided
equally between the impeller and hull inlet. In a real flow with
various losses the division of thrust is not equal. The location
of a duct opening on a hull would result in a reduction in surface forces when compared to the case of a plane wall, due to
hull curvature and end effects. Values of T p / T ~:: 0.87 to 0.52
have been found in the literature. The lower vaIue was measured for the case of a ducted airscrew in a plane wall.
A few words are needed in regard to performance estimates
in connection with bow thruster design. In Table 1, an average
value C = 0.94 is obtained if the highest value of 1.50 (airscrew)
and the lowest value of 0.55 (P/D = 0.4) are excluded. It seems
likely that a C = 1.0 could be achieved easily in a well-designed
thruster unit. Therefore, a conservative value of unity for the
static merit coefficient C is recommended for pertbrmance estimates. An optimum P/D = 1.0 appears to be indicated by the
available data. The total lateral-thrust coefficients that have
been reported in the literature for the best configurations are
as follows:
MARINE

TECHNOLOGY

0.06

REF. 9 /

0.05

O
0.03

0.02

///

0.04

//

0.01

0.0

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

KT

KQ versus KT obtained at discrete pitch ratios for adjustable-pitch pro-

Fig. 10

pellers (noncavitating), V = 0
0.70

0.60

.//

0.50

/" /

KT

0.40
z
<

//

0.30

0.20

//

/,//"

0.10

0.4

Fig. 11

0.5

0.6

0.7
0.8
0.9
THRUSTER PITCH RATIO (P/D)o.7

1.0

1.1

1.2

KT and KO versus pitch ratio for DSRV bow thruster with NSRDC
adjustable-pitch propeller 4160

P/D

KT

1.0
1.0
1.0

0.51
0.40
0.45

Reference
$

[1]

[9] (KT is extrapolated

from P/D = 0.9 to
P/D = 1,0)

* NSRDC report not in the public domain.

OCTOBER 1972

From these data an average value KT = 0.45 is suggested. How

the average values for C and KT are used in the thruster selection procedure is illustrated in the section "Thruster selection
summary."
In conclusion it is emphasized that thruster impeller performance is negligibly affected by ahead speed as demonstrated by both comparative impeller thrust and torque measurements. Thus, impeller selection or design can be considered
solely in terms of static performance.
449

0.50

0.40

P/D = 0.9

f
0.30

P/D = 0.7

0.20

P/D = 0.5

/ f

P/D = 0.4

0.10

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

O'"
(a) T h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t

P/D = 0.9
0.050

0.040

Jf

0.030

P/D = 0.7

/
0.020

P/D = 0.5

/
P/D = 0.4
0.010

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

7.0

(7"
(b) T o r q u e c o e f f i c i e n t

Fig. 1 2

Oucted thruster cavitation criteria curves

F l o w i n t e r a c t i o n at a h e a d speed. It is well known t h a t the

interaction between bow thruster jet flow and the mainstream,
at ahead speed, results in a loss of both body force and body
moment, particularly, in a certain critical range of the velocity
ratio ~J~/Uj ~ 0.2 to 0.8 [2, 10]. In a theoretical and experimental study of this flow mechanism [10], the author found
only a small interaction due to duct inflow and confirmed the
widely accepted hypothesis concerning the persistence of the
duct outflow to large distances downstream accompanied by a
major interaction effect.
450

KT a n d KQv e r s u s

o-' ( f r o m R e f e r e n c e [ 9 ] )

A bow thruster is usually designed to produce a specified

force at some ahead ship speed, and on this basis the performance at ahead speed of different-size bow thrusters should be
compared at a jet velocity t h a t varies inversely with duct diameter. One such comparison [10] showed t h a t a smaller-diameter duct produced less interaction (suction force) than a
larger-diameter duct at a higher ahead speed. Perhaps more
important was the effectiveness of extending the duct beyond
the hull (conceived as a retractable pipe extension) in the reduction of hull suction effect.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY

X i0
O.0 4 r ~

EXPERIMENTAL MEAN VALUE

;ALCULATED FROM EO. L4]

SOLID &ND BROKEN

0.0

].0173
-0.08
0.0232

0.0

0.02
FLOW COEFFIClENT@

O. Oi

Fig. 13

+ 244.5)0]

(4) 7

( A C I ) 0 = a s i n (x + B)
was assumed with x = n, a = f ( D / L ) amplitude, n = g ( D / L )
period, and B = 0 phase. It is noted that the calculated curves
should be faired with zero slope at the high-flow-rate end.
Equation (4) is independent of scale, that is, the pressure
ACp' and flow coefficient were obtained from tests that were
conducted at Reynolds numbers safely greater than the critical
value for turbulent flow. Equation (4) may be used to estimate
bow-thruster outflow interaction for a prototype based on comparative pressure defect. Flow coefficients are used that correspond either to prescribed values or to a desired range of velocity ratio U~/Uj and duct size. An elementary hull force, hull
moment, and center of action of the force can also be derived
by using the calculated pressure coefficient ACp'. The incremental surface force per unit width is

(APdS)

dx
dS

(5)

where 1 is in the circumferential direction and S is a length

along the body profile. The nondimensional surface force, moment, and center of action are, respectively,

C~, = F ~ / L l q j = ~ b
x=o

OCTOBER 1972

= f b=c,(ACff) x dx

(AC,,')dx

(7)

and

(s)

In equation (4), the choice of hull length L to nondimensionalize duct diameter was made because (1) for a given thruster
size, ship turning rate depends on hull length, and (2) there is
generally good agreement of flat-plate theory in this regard.
Figure 13 compares the experimental results to those calculated according to equation (4). The sine function form of equation (4) was suggested by the shape of the curves of Fig. 13.
For no duct outflow (ACp')4 is zero; at some higher value of ~b,
the coefficient (ACp')4 again becomes zero, corresponding to a
relatively low value of velocity ratio U ~ / U j where the thruster
jet issues approximately perpendicular to the mainstream
(static case). Within this interval, an equation of the form

7 Equation (2) of Reference [10].

C.~I~ = M , / L 2 l q j

+ 0.091)

sin [(-6830 D/L

AF~
l -

O.04

Generalized o u t f l o w c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

A phenomenological expression was derived in Reference

[10] that collapsed all the hull pressure-defect data due to
thruster outflow. A numerical evaluation of the necessary constants resulted in the following equation:
102(AC/)0 = (-9.052D/L

0.03

(6)

Equations (6) and (7) give an index of the surface force and
moment and do not consider jet diffusion over the hull surface.
In many cases, this would not seriously impair the usefulness
of the data. In the case of the comparison between the two
ducts discussed earlier, the smaller duct had less pressure defect and this, coupled with the wider jet outflow of the larger
duct, left no doubt that the smaller-diameter duct would produce a lower interaction force.
Equation (4) can be used to e s t i m a t e A P until more experimental data become available. The usual word of caution concerning the use of empirical data applies in this case: the accuracy for extrapolation purposes is unknown; therefore, the
use of equation (4) should be limited to interpolation or reasonable extrapolation.
Free r u n n i n g . The results of captive model tests have
formed the basis for comments and design criteria which have
been presented so far. Very few experiments with free-running
models have been reported. However, Taniguchi [1] has presented the results of extensive maneuvering tests. Of special
interest to the designer is the Taniguchi inference (from recorded path loci of ship models) that in turning a ship smaller
drift angles were observed by the use of bow thrusters than by
the use of a rudder. Thus, speed reduction may be less in turning with a bow thruster. Norrby [18] has mentioned a few
model tests which showed that the body turning moment from
a bow thruster is increased at a drift angle, as in a turn, in comparison to the no-drift-angle case.
Thruster selection summary
As an example consider a hypothetical ship with characteristic dimensions
A = 3 X 103 tons
L = 275 ft
B = 54ft
H = 17ft
Assume that a duct centerline length of 12 ft is available at station 0.15 L and a duty cycle that requires an effective turning
moment at 3 knots of not less than approximately 80 percent of
the static value.
S t e p 1. Initially, let the duct diameter D = 1/2 l = 6.0 ft and
the bottom immersion I = D. These are recommended values
451

as discussed previously. Consider a Dmax

= 4.0 ft. T h e situation is as shown below:

8.0 ft and a Dmm

I
S

=
=

1/D =
17"W. L.

Uj

Uo~/Uj =

L
i
STA. X / L = 0. I 5

D, ft

/, ft

l/D

S, ft

8
8
9
1.5
6
6
11
2.0
4
4
13
3.0
where it is seen t h a t the s u b m e r g e n c e for D = 8.0 ft is still adequate.
Step 2. Pick an average t u r n i n g rate for A = 3 x 103 from
Fig. 3 (say Wo = 0.68 deg/sec). T h e required t h r u s t is

w j L3H
Mo 2

17,380 lb

(relation derived by H a w k i n s [6] using flat-plate theory) with

Mo = 97 from Fig. 4.
Step 3. W i t h the specified static thrust, calculate the mo-

H
n
a'

=
=
=

P/D

5.0ft
12.0 ft
2.4
21.09
0.24
45.5 ft of water
5.572 rps (334.3 rpm)
3.77
1.0

It can be seen from the t a b u l a t i o n t h a t all values are now acceptable, and D = 5.0 ft m a y be considered as the final choice.
In some cases it m a y be necessary to Use a n o n o p t i m u m P / D in
order to o b t a i n o' > 3.5 with a consequent loss in efficiency.
A l t h o u g h a noncritical value of the velocity ratio Uo~/Uj is
associated with the 5-ft d u c t d i a m e t e r , a further check on d u c t
outflow i n t e r a c t i o n at a h e a d ship speed m a y be o b t a i n e d from
e q u a t i o n (4). C o m p u t a t i o n s show t h a t the a r g u m e n t 3.366 is
not within the interval 0 to ~r (see Fig. 13) for the specified relative d u c t size D / L = 0.0182. Therefore, no hull pressure defect
(interaction) would be expected. However, the accuracy of the
solution for ACp' is q u e s t i o n a b l e when the function ( A C p ' )
is near zero and some interaction s would be e v i d e n t at the
given velocity ratio U~/Uj = 0.24, as shown by the m o m e n t
curve for the typical surface ship in Fig. 2(b).
Step 6. Finally, e s t i m a t e the power required from an inversion of the m e r i t coefficient with C = 1.0 as r e c o m m e n d e d .

m e n t u m m e a n jet velocity

U~ = V T / p A =

0.00182 T 3/2
shp = C(pT~D2/4)IA = 667

105.45/D

and the velocity ratio U~/Uj at a speed of 3 knots (5.063 fps)

for each d u c t d i a m e t e r
D, ft
Uj, fps
U2/Uj
8
13.18
0.38
6
17.58
0.29
4
26.36
0.19
Step 4. D e t e r m i n e a t e n t a t i v e i m p e l l e r rpm and a' for the
most likely d i a m e t e r . In this case D = 4.0 ft based on the noncritical value U~/Uj = 0.19 (see Fig. 2). I m p e l l e r rate of revolution is d e t e r m i n e d from an inversion of the impeller thrust
coefficient KT. T h e average value KT = 0.45 which was
r e c o m m e n d e d for an o p t i m u m impeller p i t c h ratio of 1.0 can
be used. T h u s
/ /

n=

pD4KT

_ (

17.38X 10 ~ '~l/z
1.9905(4) 4 0.45]

8.760 rps

or 522.4 rpm, and

O-/

where
34.00
13.00
47.00
-0.50
46.50

--

P
1/2 pD2n 2

0.9952

2978
= 2.47
16 X 75.8

atmos.
s u b m e r g e n c e to

vapor pressure
net head of water H, and
P = pgH = 2978 psf

Now, a' = 2.47 is too low. ~' should be >3.5.

Step 5. R e p e a t all calculations, for the specified thrust,
using a new d u c t d i a m e t e r ; s a y D = 5.0 ft. The results are as
follows:
452

It is i m p o r t a n t to realize when considering a h e a d - s p e e d

o p e r a t i o n t h a t d u c t d i a m e t e r need not be restrictive if controlled deflection of jet outflow is e m p l o y e d [2, 10]. T h e exp e c t e d p e r f o r m a n c e of the i m p e l l e r is based on the desirable
characteristics discussed previously; namely, K a p l a n - t y p e
blade with s y m m e t r i c a l sections, e x p a n d e d b l a d e - a r e a ratio of
a b o u t 0.5, hub ratio xh ~ 0.3, and three or four blades. It is
e m p h a s i z e d t h a t the design information and t h r u s t e r selection
m e t h o d p r e s e n t e d is a composite guide t h a t should be reviewed
as new d a t a b e c o m e available.

References
1 Taniguchi, K. et al., "Investigations into the Fundamental
Characteristics and Operating Performances of Side Thruster," Mitsubishi Technical Bulletin 35, May 1966.
2 Chislett, M. S. and Bi6rbeden, O., "Influence of Ship Speed on
the Effectiveness of a Lateral-Thrust Unit," Hydro-og Aerodynamisk
Laboratorium, Lyngby, Denmark, Report Hy-8, April 1966.
3 Taylor, Robert T., "Experimental Investigation of the Effects
of Some Design Variables on the Static Thrust Characteristics of a
Small-Scale Shrouded Propeller Submerged in a Wing," Langley
Aeronautical Laboratory TN 4126, Jan. 1958.
4 Ridley, Donald E., "Effect of Tunnel Entrance Configuration on
Thruster Performance," SNAME Paper, San Diego Section, Sept.
1967.
5 Stuntz, Jr., G. R. and Taylor, R. J., "Some Aspects of BowThruster Design," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 72, 1964.
6 Hawkins, Seth et al., "The Use of Maneuvering Propulsion Devices on Merchant Ships," Robert Taggart, Inc. Report RT-8518, Contract MA-3293, Jan. 1965.
7 English, J. W., "Further Considerations in the Design of
Lateral Thrust Units," Internationa! Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 13,
No. 137, Jan. 1966.
8 Van Manen, J. D. et al., "Research on the Maneuverability and
Propulsion of Very Large Tankers," Sixth Naval Hydrodynamics Symposium, Washington, D. C., Sept.-Oct. 1966.
9 Pehrsson, Lennart, "Model Tests with Bow-Jet (Bow-Steering)
s Remember that a small change in pressure acting over a large area
can produce an important force.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY

Screw Propellers," First Symposium on Ship Maneuverability and

David Taylor Model Basin Report 1461, Oct. 1960.
10 Beveridge, John L., "Bow-Thruster Jet Flow," J. of Ship Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, Sept. 1971.
11 Schwanecke, H., "Design of Lateral Thrusters (State of Art),"
Twelfth International Towing Tank Conference Propeller Committee
Report, Appendix VI, 1969.
12 Platt, Robert J., Jr., "Static Tests of a Shrouded and an Unshrouded Propeller," NACA RM L7H25, Feb. 1948.
13 Shiba, H., "Air-Drawing of Marine Propellers," Transportation
Technical Research Institute (Japan), Report 9, Aug. 1953.
14 Wallis, R. A., Axial Flow Fans, New York and London, Academic Press, 1961.
15 Van Manen, J. D., "Effect of Radial Load Distribution on the
Performance of Shrouded Propellers," International Shipbuilding
Progress, Vol. 9, No. 93, May 1962.
16 Van Manen, J. D. and Oosterveld, M. W. C., "Analysis of
Ducted-Propeller Design," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 74, 1966.
17 Van Manen, J. D. and Superina, A., "The Design of Screw Propellers in Nozzles," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 6, No.
55, March 1959.
18 Norrby, Ralph, "The Effectiveness of a Bow Thruster at Low
and Medium Ship Speeds," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol.
14, No. 156, Aug. 1967.

OCTOBER 1972

Bibliography
Duport, J. and Renard, J., "Panel Discussion 5--Ducted Propellers,"
Seventh Hydrodynamics Symposium, Rome, Italy, Aug. 1968.
Goodman, Theodore R. and Chen, C. C., "Potential Flow Solution
of Propeller Driven Jets Used for Submarine Depth Control,"
Oceanics, Inc. Report 64-18b, Sept. 1965.
Jordinson, 1~, "Flow in a Jet Directed Normal to the Win d,'' Aeronautical Research Council, R & M 3074, Oct. 1956.
Keffer, J. F. and Baines, W. D., "The Round Turbulent Jet in a
Crosswind," J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 15, Part 4, April 1963.
Schaub, U. W. and Cockshutt, E. P., "Analytical and Experimental
Studies of Normal Inlets, with Special Reference to Fan-in-Wing
VTOL Powerplants," Proceedings o[ the Fourth Congress of the
International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Palais de l'Unesco,
Paris, Aug. 1964.
"First Hydraulically Driven LIPS Transverse Propeller," Shipbuilding an3 Shipping Record, Aug. 1, 1963.

Discussers
John Fenton

S e t h Hawkins

D o n a l d Ridley

A. R o m b e r g

453